3 ms·

> Something that has frustrated me so far about the debate over web3 is the extent to which it's articulated in the latter terms — those of a prediction market

> Something that has frustrated me so far about the debate over web3 is the extent to which it's articulated in the latter terms — those of a prediction market > ... all discourse is subconsciously understood to be people taking speculative positions on various topics > ... can I at least just get slowly tanked on free booze and annoy people with a reminder that the house always wins? So clearly the author thinks that "Web3" is just a rebranding of crypto. I didn't see anywhere in the article an explanation of Web3 or any examples. Let me premise my take by saying that I am not a crypto zealot. If I hear a financial/investing podcast talk about crypto, I will fast forward. I think the vast majority of investors should steer clear. What about Web3? Let me tell you my story of independently "discovering" the concept now being called Web3 - as I'm sure thousands of others have done in the last few years. In July I was out on my walk and an idea popped into my head. It was interesting enough that I took out my phone and recorded as I thought it though out loud. Here it is in a nutshell: Distributed smart contracts can empower information consumers. And here's the specific form that my idea took, and why, when I got home from my walk, I bought some ETH, having never owned any cryptocurrency before. My screens are going to be "Web3 clients". This client will have a new feature that my current TV does not. It will have available an overlay like Amazon X-ray. It will display info about what is on my screen, and most importantly a "truth meter". While I couldn't work out the details of how this would work, I did decide that a) it's a feature that I think will arrive, and b) Ethereum is likely to play a role. Here's another idea: Discuss Web3 without even mentioning cryptocurrencies. Instead, just give your idea as I did, and explain how blockchain smart contracts will play a role in the implementation, and perhaps at the very end of presenting your idea, mention that it may be considered a form of Web3.

SahAssar 5y ago
> Let me tell you my story of independently "discovering" the concept now being called Web3 Alright, listening... > It will display info about what is on my screen, and most importantly a "truth meter". While I couldn't work out the details of how this would work You are describing dislikes, reviews, stars and similar systems. They exist. They are pretty universally considered bad and when they are not it is not because magic decentralization. I'd also ask why/how a universal "truth meter" would work. Saying "I couldn't work out the details of how this would work" makes this sorta like someone saying "Imagine if we had infinite power, wouldn't that be nice?" or "What if people could just get along?". > Discuss Web3 without even mentioning cryptocurrencies I'd love to! But the Magic Internet Money cryptocurrency people seem to have decided it must involve cryptocurrencies so the term is tainted. I consider web3 a term similar to php6 or ipv5. Something that was but also wasn't, isn't rescuable as a term since it implies something that never actually was.
- intrasight 5y ago
  >You are describing dislikes, reviews, stars and similar systems. No. Not crowdsource. Remember this is to counter the effects of social media. I mean that every moment of video is fingerprinted, and it's providence back to creator is noted, and the trustworthiness of that creator is reported. The purpose is to counter fake news and deep fakes. So if NYTimes created the video - good truth. If NYTimes showed a video they found on the internet - less good score. Still good since I'm trusting NYTimes to vet source.

SahAssar 5y ago

> Let me tell you my story of independently "discovering" the concept now being called Web3 Alright, listening... > It will display info about what is on my screen, and most importantly a "truth meter". While I couldn't work out the details of how this would work You are describing dislikes, reviews, stars and similar systems. They exist. They are pretty universally considered bad and when they are not it is not because magic decentralization. I'd also ask why/how a universal "truth meter" would work. Saying "I couldn't work out the details of how this would work" makes this sorta like someone saying "Imagine if we had infinite power, wouldn't that be nice?" or "What if people could just get along?". > Discuss Web3 without even mentioning cryptocurrencies I'd love to! But the Magic Internet Money cryptocurrency people seem to have decided it must involve cryptocurrencies so the term is tainted. I consider web3 a term similar to php6 or ipv5. Something that was but also wasn't, isn't rescuable as a term since it implies something that never actually was.

intrasight 5y ago
>You are describing dislikes, reviews, stars and similar systems. No. Not crowdsource. Remember this is to counter the effects of social media. I mean that every moment of video is fingerprinted, and it's providence back to creator is noted, and the trustworthiness of that creator is reported. The purpose is to counter fake news and deep fakes. So if NYTimes created the video - good truth. If NYTimes showed a video they found on the internet - less good score. Still good since I'm trusting NYTimes to vet source.